City of Miami weighs in on controversial project appeals

The city of Miami will not appeal a circuit court ruling that undercuts its approval of the Related Group’s controversial condo project in Coconut Grove.

But, the city has decided to appeal an administrative ruling that says the project’s approval must be thrown out because staff did not do adequate research.

Commissioner Marc Sarnoff sponsored a resolution July 10 that prohibited the city attorney from pursuing an appeal of the Miami-Dade Circuit Court ruling. The resolution passed, 3-1, with commissioners Michelle Spence-Jones and Tomas Regalado joining Sarnoff in the majority. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez voted against the prohibition, with Chairman Joe Sanchez absent.

Spence-Jones’ vote against pursuing the case in circuit court is notable because she voted to approve the project last year. Spence-Jones could not be reached for comment.

Sarnoff said in a press release that the vote returns the property to its original government/institutional zoning. But the vote only limited the city’s ability to file an appeal in the circuit court case.

In May, a three-judge circuit court panel threw out the Miami City Commission’s approval of a zoning change and permit that allowed the three-tower project proposed near Vizcaya Museum and Gardens to be built. Related and development partner Ocean Land Investments have appealed that decision.

Separately, the city of Miami, Mercy Hospital, Ocean Land and Related filed exceptions, which is tantamount to an appeal, to the July 9 ruling in the administrative case involving the same project.

Administrative Law Judge J. Lawrence Johnston recommended to the administration commission that the city’s land use change is not in compliance with Florida statutes.

In the ruling, Johnston said that the two petitioning groups, the Vizcayans and Grove Isle homeowners, did not show that the city’s land use change was inconsistent with its comprehensive plan. But they were successful in arguing that the “data and analysis were insufficient to support” the land use change.

The Vizcayans also filed an exception in the administrative case, arguing that Johnston’s interpretation of the project’s impact on the comprehensive plan was wrong.